Mumbai: Bombay high court on Friday said it was “appalled” by the “deliberate” and “brazen” violation of its April 7 order for handing over to a special team the investigation into the ‘encounter’ death of the accused in the Badlapur school sexual assault case.
After the judges warned of a contempt notice, the chief of the state’s Crime Investigation Department (CID) assured the court that it would forthwith hand over the case papers to the special investigation team (SIT) constituted to probe the Sept 23 death of Shinde.

Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale directed superintendent of police Prashant Waghunde to hand over all papers pertaining to the accidental death report to joint commissioner of police (crime) Lakhmi Gautam “so as to enable SIT to take appropriate steps as directed by the April 7 order.” As per the order, the papers were meant to be handed over to Lakhmi’s team in two days.
The judges said it was not even brought to their notice by Lakhmi that the papers were not received. “Is there sanctity to orders passed by the court?” asked Justice Mohite Dere. Justice Gokhale added, “What are we showing citizens of this country? We pass orders and they are just there.”
The judges, who began hearing the case in the morning, had asked for both officers, Lakhmi and Khargunde, to be present at 2.30pm on Friday. Lakhmi said he had formed the SIT as directed and was awaiting papers to take over the probe. Waghunde said he did not hand over the papers on the instruction of superior officers.
Shinde’s father had moved the HC for an SIT or CBI probe into his son’s ‘murder.’ A magistrate’s report dated Jan 17 had said Shinde’s death could have been avoided. It held the five policemen escorting him responsible for it. Despite a case for a cognisable offence, no FIR was filed. The govt cited the CID’s investigation and a Commission of Inquiry by a retired HC judge as reasons.
However, in its April 7 order, the HC had said when a prima facie offence is disclosed, it is mandatory for the investigating agency to register a First Information Report, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the Lalita Kumari judgement. The HC had also constituted an SIT under Lakhmi’s supervision.
The matter was listed for hearing on Friday as the Commission on April 15 had written to the HC registry for documents relied upon by the magistrate. This was when amicus curiae (friend of the court) and senior advocate Manjula Rao informed the court that despite the order for all papers to be handed over in two days to Lakhmi, it was not done, and an FIR was not filed.
Justifying the delay, public prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar said the state had challenged the HC order in the Supreme Court and the matter is likely to be heard on Thursday. Hence, “give us one opportunity.”
But the judges noted that the appeal in SC was filed on April 9 and no attempt was made by the state to seek an urgent hearing. Justice Gokhale said the HC order had not been “interfered with” by the Supreme Court. “You have to comply with the order, or we’ll be constrained to issue contempt,” said the judge.
The judges said if the SC “sets aside our order, it (probe) can go back to State CID,” but the HC order has to be complied with. Venegavkar “with folded hands” requested only a week’s time. They asked that additional director general (CID) Prashant Burde remain present online. Burde said, “right away we are giving the papers.”